Welcome To aBlackWeb

Führer Trump’s Impeachment Inquiry Thread. Update: The Senate completes the coverup


Conway Spars With Reporter After She Tries Dodging Questions On Trump Attacks

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway found herself sparring again with a member of the media Wednesday morning.

During a press gaggle outside the White House, Conway went after NBC News’ Peter Alexander after he pressed her on President Trump’s “Never Trumper” attacks against Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and career diplomat Bill Taylor, both of whom testified in the House impeachment inquiry.

Conway’s initial attempt at ignoring Alexander’s question by moving onto the next one failed when the reporter told her she’d allow Alexander to finish.

“He does that to women all the time,” Conway told the reporter who she attempted to move onto while turning her face away from Alexander, who then asked about what evidence the White House has that those men are Never Trumpers.

Conway then told Alexander, “I don’t even know what you’re asking about,” prompting Alexander to ask his Never Trumper accusation question again.

The heated exchange then devolved into Alexander repeatedly telling Conway that he’s “the reporter so I’ll ask the questions,” which eventually led to Conway continuing her deflections and attacking Alexander while doing so.

“What evidence do you have that the President of the United States, who was democratically elected, and I’m sure you didn’t vote for him, predicted he wouldn’t, I am fact I know you didn’t predict he would win, I know you’re not going to vote for him next time, respectfully, I’m not going to call you a Never Trumper, but what evidence do you have that the democratically elected president of the United States should be thrown out of office and removed based on the testimony of people who you hadn’t even heard of weeks ago?” Conway said.

After Alexander told Conway that he just wanted to hold Trump “accountable” for statements he’d made, Conway hit back at Alexander by saying “you want the President impeached and you don’t have the goods.”

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway found herself sparring again with a member of the media Wednesday morning.

During a press gaggle outside the White House, Conway went after NBC News’ Peter Alexander after he pressed her on President Trump’s “Never Trumper” attacks against Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and career diplomat Bill Taylor, both of whom testified in the House impeachment inquiry.

Conway’s initial attempt at ignoring Alexander’s question by moving onto the next one failed when the reporter told her she’d allow Alexander to finish.

“He does that to women all the time,” Conway told the reporter who she attempted to move onto while turning her face away from Alexander, who then asked about what evidence the White House has that those men are Never Trumpers.

Conway then told Alexander, “I don’t even know what you’re asking about,” prompting Alexander to ask his Never Trumper accusation question again.

The heated exchange then devolved into Alexander repeatedly telling Conway that he’s “the reporter so I’ll ask the questions,” which eventually led to Conway continuing her deflections and attacking Alexander while doing so.

“What evidence do you have that the President of the United States, who was democratically elected, and I’m sure you didn’t vote for him, predicted he wouldn’t, I am fact I know you didn’t predict he would win, I know you’re not going to vote for him next time, respectfully, I’m not going to call you a Never Trumper, but what evidence do you have that the democratically elected president of the United States should be thrown out of office and removed based on the testimony of people who you hadn’t even heard of weeks ago?” Conway said.

After Alexander told Conway that he just wanted to hold Trump “accountable” for statements he’d made, Conway hit back at Alexander by saying “you want the President impeached and you don’t have the goods.”
 

Don Jr. Promotes Attempt To Identify Whistleblower

As his father’s obsession with learning the identity of the whistleblower who’s complaint prompted the impeachment inquiry intensifies, Donald Trump Jr. promoted an attempt to name the government official.

Democrats and some Republicans have called for the whistleblower to remain anonymous, noting that the law protects whistleblowers and arguing that outing the whistleblower would endanger him.

Yet, some of Trump’s closest allies have called for the whistleblower to be exposed. And Breitbart on Wednesday published a piece noting that RealClearPolitics reported on the alleged identity individual, citing anonymous officials, and linked this official to Obama adminstration officials. Trump Jr. then tweeted out Breitbart’s story.

The whistleblower’s lawyers, Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid, responded Wednesday with a statement asserting that they “will not confirm or deny any name that is published or promoted by supporters of the President.”

The lawyers jabbed at Trump allies’ attempts to expose their client, saying that such efforts are driven by a “desperation to deflect from the substance of the whistleblower complaint.”

“It will not relieve the President of the need to address the substantive allegations, all of which have been substantially proven to be true,” Bakaj and Zaid said.

The White House told HuffPost reporter Yashar Ali Trump did not know in advance that his son would tweet the article, nor did any senior administration officials.
 

At Least Four Lawyers Declined To Represent Giuliani

President Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani announced on Twitter Wednesday he’s finally hired outside counsel to represent him as the picture of Giuliani’s role in pressuring a foreign power to help Trump politically becomes clearer by the day.

But the weekslong effort to get some lawyers on his back was more difficult than Giuliani made it appear in his attorney Twitter announcement Wednesday.According to the New York Times, at least four separate, prominent attorneys declined to work for Giuliani for a variety of reasons. Those attorneys: Mary Jo White, former head of the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York; Theodore Wells Jr.; Daniel Stein, another recent veteran of the SDNY; and Paul Shechtman, a partner at Bracewell law firm where Giuliani used to work.

Stein reportedly was in negotiations with Giuliani for two weeks and was near striking a deal before it was dropped over a conflict of interest, according to the Times. Bracewell reportedly rejected Giuliani when he approached the firm about Shechtman two weeks ago.

Giuliani has been searching for legal representation since former Watergate prosecutor Jon Sole left his side in October. According to people familiar with the matter who spoke to the Times, lawyers practicing outside a firm were worried that Giuliani might try to run his own case.
 

Graham Accuses Sondland Of Conspiring With Dems To Go After Trump

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has a new theory for why EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland revised his impeachment testimony.

During an interview on Fox News Wednesday night, Graham accused Sondland of conspiring with “Democratic operatives” and House Intel Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), which Graham suggested led Sondland to revise his impeachment testimony.

Graham particularly took aim at the section in Sondland’s revised testimony where he stated that he now recalls telling Ukrainian officials that U.S. military aid was contingent upon making a “public anti-corruption statement” related to an investigation into the gas company where former Vice President Joe Biden’s son sat on the board of and the origins of the Russia probe.

“Not one person has talked to President Trump about whether or not he wanted a quid pro quo,” Graham said. “[State Department diplomat Bill] Taylor is saying he assumed there was a quid pro quo based on what Sondland told him, the EU ambassador. He said previously there was not, now his memory has been refreshed.”

When Fox News host Martha MacCallum asked the notorious Trump defender about Schiff saying that the release of testimony transcripts prove that the “most important facts are largely not contested,” Graham said “that statement is full of crap” before stoking a conspiracy accusing Sondland of switching up his testimony because of a “connection” with Democratic operatives.

“Why did Sondland change his testimony?” Graham said. “Was there a connection between Sondland and Democratic operatives on the committee? Did he talk to Schiff? Did he talk to Schiff’s staffers?”

Graham then pointed out that he’s “been a lawyer for a very long time” as he continued his rant against Sondland’s testimony.

“When someone remembers something they didn’t know before it makes me incredibly suspicious,” Graham said. “Why did Sondland change his mind? What prompted him to change his mind about maybe there was a quid pro quo when I said there wasn’t?”

Watch Graham’s remarks below:



Earlier this week, Graham unleashed his latest talking point that the Trump administration’s approach to policy in Ukraine is “incoherent” and officials are “incapable of forming a quid pro quo.” Graham also told reporters that he doesn’t plan on reading the deposition transcripts of the impeachment inquiry because he thinks “this is a bunch of B.S.”

Graham isn’t the only Republican on Capitol Hill going after Sondland. On Wednesday morning, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) dismissed the EU ambassador’s revised testimony as his “opinion.”
 

Hugh Hewitt Urges McConnell To Run Impeachment Trial Merrick Garland Style

Conservative radio host and commentator Hugh Hewitt urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to take a page from his own playbook in deciding which ground rules to follow as he tackles the looming prospect that the House will send impeachment articles in coming weeks.



Follow the Merrick Garland approach.

In a new column in the Washington Post, Hewitt laid out the risks of the perceived three options that stand before McConnell — a quick dismissal; a long, extensive trial; and a limited trial, which he argues would “serve only to reward Democrats for their bad behavior.” Hewitt said the long trial approach might help President Trump’s reelection chances because it would give Republicans ample time to poke holes in House Democrats’ evidence. But, he lamented, this approach also stands to give legitimacy to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) “process,” which he believes is “compromised.”

That leaves McConnell with just one solid option, according to Hewitt: “Peremptory dismissal” of the charges to express Senate Republicans’ belief that the articles “do not merit the Senate’s sustained attention,” he said. McConnell performed the same outright stonewalling when Congress was tasked with picking another Supreme Court justice in the last year of former President Barack Obama’s presidency. Garland famously was never afforded a hearing in the Senate, and with Trump’s ultimate election victory, he has been able to name two justices to the high court.

Hewitt argues:

“When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died on Feb. 13, 2016, it took McConnell about an hour to declare that the Senate would not consider a replacement nominee until after the November presidential election. This bold move on behalf of the Constitution will always be McConnell’s crowning achievement as leader: He let the people decide the direction of the court. The vacancy proved to be a key motivator in Trump’s stunning upset,” he wrote.
“Americans who supported McConnell can be counted on to back him now if Senate Republicans decide that bogus articles of impeachment do not merit the Senate’s sustained attention. Peremptory dismissal — think of it as a motion for summary judgment — would serve future presidents of both parties even if it would deny Trump the high-profile political theater he delights in and almost invariably has succeeded in dominating since he came down the escalator. I’d love to see a competent defense team unravel Russiagate or Spygate or whatever you call the last three years of guerrilla political war waged by ‘the Resistance.’
“But the price of defining “high crimes and misdemeanors” down is steep.”
 

Bolton Skips Out On Impeachment Inquiry Testimony

Former NSA John Bolton skipped his scheduled testimony as part of the impeachment inquiry Thursday, depriving Democrats of testimony likely damning to President Donald Trump.

According to Vice News, the hearing was scheduled for 9 a.m. E.T. It has been unclear in recent weeks whether Bolton would attend.

He has become an increasingly compelling character in the impeachment inquiry, as other witnesses’ testimonies revealed him to be very uncomfortable with the backchannel Ukraine dealings orchestrated by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

He allegedly referred to the pressure campaign as a “drug deal” and once angrily ended a meeting when U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland brought up the quid pro quo with Ukrainian officials.

If Democrats dropping their subpoena Wednesday to compel Bolton deputy Charles Kupperman to testify is any clue, it seems that their strategy is to shake off officials’ refusal to show up and instead focus their energies on the public hearings starring those who want to speak out.
 

It’s Come To This: GOP Will Formally Request Public Whistleblower Testimony

Republicans will now officially request a public testimony from the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment inquiry.

According to CNN Thursday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) told reporters that Republicans will request that the House Intelligence Committee force the whistleblower to testify publicly.

It remains unlikely the whistleblower would ever actually appear in a public forum.

CNN reported that Jordan mentioned that Republicans have until Saturday to request witnesses, and they’ll include the whistleblower.

A Jordan aide told CNN that although Republicans would accept a public or private testimony from the whistleblower, their request will be filed under House rules for the public phase of the impeachment proceedings.

On Wednesday, the whistleblower’s lawyers Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid said in a statement that they refuse to confirm or deny any alleged names floated by Trump allies and conservative media. Last weekend, Zaid said that his client has offered to answer Republicans’ questions under oath.

President Trump and his GOP allies have ramped up their calls for the whistleblower to publicly testify in the past week. On Sunday, Trump prodded White House reporters to investigate and release the person’s identity. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) backed Trump’s whistleblower crusade the next day during a campaign rally in Kentucky Monday evening. Donald Trump Jr. joined the GOP chorus Wednesday by promoting an attempt to name the government official.

However, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) — who is set to return as the Senate Judiciary chair in the next Congress — doubled down on his stance Monday that whistleblowers should be protected.

Major news organizations — which include CNN, NBC News and even the Trump-friendly Fox News — have issued guidance to their staffers to refrain from identifying the whistleblower.
 

As WH Prepares For Public Impeachment Hearings, Fretting Most About Bill Taylor


As President Donald Trump’s team braces for public impeachment inquiry testimonies beginning next week, they’ve focused much of their trepidation on the first witness in particular: Ukraine diplomat Bill Taylor.

According to CNN, the White House is wary of the combination of Taylor’s credibility — longtime and current State Department official, veteran, personally recruited by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — and the damning information he first conveyed behind closed doors.

Trump is so anxious about the upcoming testimony that he barked at Pompeo for hiring Taylor in the first place, a rare rebuke for one of Trump’s preferred secretaries.

Taylor’s closed-door testimony was one of the most damning days for Trump during the impeachment inquiry so far, as he detailed the quid pro quo at the heart of the Ukraine pressure campaign.
 
What is the point of this? Doesn’t this shit have to go through the senate for anything to happen
Political theatrics, either they have real damning shit they plan on releasing drip by drip allowing each Republican supporter to hang themselves with their support. Or they are believe everyone is as entertained with their bullshit as they are, and nothing at all comes from this. Or or...they are tryna slow ball it in hopes that more snitches break
 
Back
Top